You convinced me!
But I won't tell you I wasted my vote on a write in or 3rd party candidate cuz I still want to be able to post bullshit about Democrats on DU!
Wee!

Well done.

precinct on election day.

Protect those inalienable posting privleges!

Because, principles.

I'll sit it out behind the wheel of a car driving voters to the polls...and I'll vote during one of those trips!

Behind the table at the Voting place as an Election Inspector. We have paper ballots plus the electronic reader in NY state. You can manually recount the vote. No ID needed. Your replies to name and address must be correct and your signature must match your signature on file.

Or she didn't make a speech to her congressional colleagues urging them to do the same?

Or she actually read the NIE that said there was no WMD?

Which should I apologize for misunderstanding?

How did they manage the four-part harmony of "Sweet Adeline"?

Who sang the fourth? Maurice Chevalier?

Truly one of life's greatest imponderables.

Made my day!

I find it is easy to ignore you and still read all the enlightening posts you make. I ignore you in my head...I can still read you and laugh. Aaaah~ I read you loud and clear. Will I get another hide from you now? The last one was pretty damn ugly, bet you laughed and laughed at the names I was called.

Had to say that. Now I am done.

Bye.

I await the eviction notice with high hopes.

Interesting.

(Always attacking.)

Seems like that qualifies.

A little stalkery and creepy.

The search function is your little tireless helper.

I'm good, just know this is just the Internet (which I know you know).

Good to know.

Don't you know there was the fog of war? So, um, some mistakes were made and stuff.

No, wait, the administration lied to us and uhhhh, well...USA USA USA.

During her 2006 Senate re-election campaign, Hillary received a contribution from a woman in Larchmont whose occasional bridge partner's son was in his college's Sailing Club along with a guy who, in a late-night bull session in the dorm lobby, once said that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.

That's the only basis on which those crazy fringe leftist Hillary-haters tie her to the Iraq War.

And anyone who says otherwise is a right-wing troll, just here to stir shit.

Hillary did not want to upset the Jewish vote that gives to both parties in her state based upon which candidate shows the strongest support for Israel.

The political arithmetic for Clinton was easy — knowing she could take the larger liberal Jewish vote for granted, she also showed support for Israel’s right-wing government to keep moderate voters and their money from bolting and stopping from supporting her any further.

That price for that support was a vote for war.

Since that bloc swings a large stick in NY state politics, she took the cowardly way out.

Yes, there are Jews in New York who are ardently pro-Israel and who on that basis supported the war. There are also plenty of Jews in the ranks of the generally progressive New Yorkers who oppose militarism in general and who opposed the Iraq War in particular. I (a Gentile)was among hundreds of thousands of people marching down Fifth Avenue to oppose the war, and several of my pro-Israel Jewish friends were there, too.

I suspect that Clinton was less concerned about the 2006 election, where she rated to be a strong favorite regardless of how she voted, and more concerned about 2008 and beyond. She had national ambitions. For campaigning outside her liberal adopted state, she didn't want to be open to the charge of being weak on national security. You say that she knew "she could take the larger liberal Jewish vote for granted," but I'd apply that more broadly -- she knew that, in a general election for President, almost all of us who marched against the war would vote for her either way, and she wanted to be competitive in more conservative states.

I'm sure she didn't foresee how much trouble the vote would cause her in a future struggle for the Democratic nomination.

Certainly she had national ambitions from the beginning, and that would have colored her actions.

To quote the OP, her actual record is precisely why I won't vote for HC in the Democratic primary.

Same reason I didn't vote for John Kerry, John Edwards, or Joe Biden in Dem primaries.

Did Hillary know more than they did?

Why do you suppose most Senate Democrats voted for it, including our 2004 presidential & vice presidential nominees and our current vice president? I know you didn't get here until well after Bush had stolen his second term, but I'm wondering if you held all 29 in the contempt they deserve for it, or is Clinton's abysmal vote the only one you're consternated over?

Have you seen anything to the contrary?

Since a presidential campaign season is bearing down on us, and since Clinton is believed to be a strong possibility to run, what she did is of most interest as compared to others who are not running. But since Biden also might run, let me say this: Biden, Clinton, or anyone else who voted for war made a decision that was so epically horrific that they should not hold any high office.

As to why? I have thoughts, but can't know for sure. But in a sense I'm a simple person and am of the belief that people who do insane things once are at high risk of doing them again, whatever the motive.

Thanks for the response.

It amazes me that the vote to go to war, against a country that was no threat to us, no longer matters is absolutely disgusting.

...that I envied so when I first happened upon this board.

an A+

Her writing when was better when it wasn't about a team.

...but thanks for coming on to this thread to inform me of your opinion.

I don't want a Republican, either. I just want a better choice.

And I'm also a writer and capable of stating an opinion, which you sarcastically mocked.

That I don't choose to wax poetic here is of no consequence to you or me.

Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 04:05 AM - Edit history (2)

...I don't think Nance is actually a stalwart Clinton supporter. (I'm not supporting her for the Dem nom, myself, though I used to spar with her in 2007-8 over Hillary v. her candidate Barack). Interesting, though, how many folks can't step outside of all of that political antipathy and judge the issue she was addressing in her satire on its merits. One poster even read something about the Iraq vote in her essay. In fact, most of the posters who've responded with criticisms of her essay seem to be fighting their political battle against Hillary against issues they've erected on this thread outside of anything she's actually written about here.

It's like this (my interpretation, of course) :

Nance: Tangential associations aren't necessarily causal proof of wrongdoing.

Response: You're just deflecting from her Iraq vote!

Disconnect.

and post "please see bigtree #186".

and think it's very good or not good at all.

...but, I don't accept that her writing is 'about a team.'

I could be wrong, but I also don't believe Nance's parodying of guilt by association in Clinton's case were primarily about support for a Clinton candidacy. Her political affinities in the next election remain to be seen, of course, but I can wholly relate to rejecting this type of political attack on Hillary Clinton - on it's lack of merit, on its focus on tangential associations (at best), on it's relevance to anything outside of the charitable goals of the foundation, and on where it originated and is promoted - I believe - in right wing strategist offices as a hedge against their own much more substantial and consequential ties to foreign money.

with other recent posts where she lumps all people who oppose a Clinton candidacy into one group, and applies the worst qualities to all. When others have noted this, her response is consistent: oh no, I'm only speaking about the trolls, etc. But a pattern has emerged.

Obviously, she has the right to advocate for a candidate in any manner she wants to. And, clearly, a heck of a lot of forum members appreciate her pro-Clinton contributions to the discussions on DU:GD. She is a talented communicator.

In my opinion, the number of "trolls" on DU is so tiny, that they are without any significance. There are, however, a large number of good people who oppose Clinton (or at least doubt they could vote for her). They raise valid concerns -- her foreign policy, her stance on some environmental issues, and her ties to Wall Street.

None of the most vocal of Clinton advocates seems willing to address these very real concerns. Rather, they tend to dismiss them by way of dismissing anyone who raises them. Trolls, don't you know. It would seem to me that there would be advantages to having one of DU's better writers who is pro-Clinton address them -- especially if one seeks to convince others that Ms. Clinton is a solid choice for President.

...so, I'm having a very hard time regarding her as a 'Clinton advocate.' Untypical of most 'Clinton supporters' on this board, Nance has righteously defended Pres. Obama from the start of his candidacy and throughout his presidency,

Below, Nance writes, "There are valid concerns about Hillary's policies and positions, and are expressed by many here on a daily basis." That seems almost identical to your own admonition that 'They raise valid concerns -- her foreign policy, her stance on some environmental issues, and her ties to Wall Street.'

Btw, the person who posted the op she was responding to flamed out and was served in a most spectacular fashion a few hours ago, so, troll or no, really shouldn't get as much consideration as you're providing here.

They are completely untrue.

I have not "lumped all people who oppose a Clinton candidacy into one group, and applied the worst qualities to all. When others have noted this, her response is consistent: oh no, I'm only speaking about the trolls, etc. But a pattern has emerged."

I stated on one recent thread that I thought a number of anti-Hillary posts are the result of RW trolls. And I believe they are, in that the trolls tend to latch onto topics that get DUers riled up - a classic case of "let's you and him fight". That was ONE post on my part - so I fail to see the "pattern" of which you speak.

The notion that I would "apply the worst qualities" to ALL of those who are against Hillary's candidacy is absurd on its face. I have many friends on this board - people who I am also friends with on other websites and in RL - who are dead set against Hillary being our nominee. The idea that I would apply "the worst qualities" to those friends, or intimate that they are "trolls", defies logic and common sense. Do you honestly think that I would imply that EVERY single DUer who is against Hill's nomination is a right-winger?

Many of the anti-Hillary posters here are posters who have been here longer than I have, and their Democratic credentials are beyond reproach. To think I - or anyone else, for that matter - would suddenly come to the conclusion that they are all right-wingers is downright laughable.

"the number of "trolls" on DU is so tiny, that they are without any significance. There are, however, a large number of good people who oppose Clinton (or at least doubt they could vote for her). They raise valid concerns ..."

I have stated many times that the anti-Hill folks DO have valid concerns. Just because I don't share some of those concerns, or see some of those concerns as less important than others, is in no way taking a position that concerns should not be discussed - about Hillary, or any other potential POTUS contender. This OP was prompted by the idea that trying to "connect" Hillary or The Clinton Foundation to sex offenders and tax-dodgers solely on the basis that donations come from a particular bank is absurd - and has nothing to do with "valid concerns" that should be raised.

The number of trolls here is not "tiny". Many of them have now become accepted as "long term DUers", who just "happen" to post nothing but anti-Dem rhetoric under the guise of being "disappointed Dems". They are prolific posters, they serve on juries, etc.

I initially stopped posting here years ago when Skinner changed the TOS from "constructive criticism" of Dems being permitted to "any and all criticism of Dems" being acceptable. That rule change was a welcome mat to every RW troll who ever dreamed of disrupting this site. I think you can imagine how many of we Dems would have registered at FreeRepublic during the BushCo years, had RimJob suddenly declared that "any and all criticism" of Dubya, Cheney, et al, was allowed. We all would have rushed right in, declaring that we were staunch Bush supporters who were now "disappointed" in the way he was governing - just as many RW trolls signed-up here and told their sob stories about how they'd canvassed for, donated to, and voted for Obama, but now realize he wasn't who they thought he was.

Although there are still some truly committed Democrats still posting here, I no longer see DU as a "Democratic" site. It has become just another political message board open to all, where trolls are free to post blatantly anti-Democrat BS without interference. And the fact they are part of the jury pool means that even the most racist, sexist, RW posts are often left standing, depending on who the jurors are.

All of that being said, if you have any evidence of a "pattern" of my calling all anti-Hillary posters RW trolls, I suggest you provide the links thereto.

I am truly disappointed in you, H2O Man. Despite our many differences of opinion on various issues, I would never even think of accusing you of saying something you didn't say, nor would I insinuate that you have a "pattern" of saying such things.

Over the weekend, I “joined” in on an OP/thread by friend “bigtree,” in which he spoke of being a member of your fan club. I thought it was a wonderful gesture on his part, and I was more than happy to add my two cents to it. I did so without any reservations. However, for the sake of this conversation, I will note that it was shortly after disagreeing with you on the nature of forum members’ opinions of Hillary Clinton.

By no coincidence, that same general disagreement is found here, on this OP/thread that you started. In response to bigtree’s comment per people either “getting it” or not, I noted that one could “get” your OP, but not appreciate it. Indeed, one can get it, not appreciate it, but still heartily endorse our friend’s fan club post ……for good writers, like good politicians, athletes, etc, are human beings ……and human beings are not, by definition, perfect.

I noted on bigtree’s OP that, at my age, I am no longer a “fan” of anyone (or any team). Thus, while I truly enjoy watching the Super Bowl, or NBA finals, I’m never “disappointed.” My favorite sport is boxing. On May 2, Floyd Mayweather will fight Manny Pacquiao; this will be the single biggest money-making event in sports history. Mayweather, for example, should easily double the $92 million he made in a single bout, in September of 2013. Needless to say, no matter who wins, about half the fans will be disappointed.

That type of “disappointment” is merely the result of one person setting a standard for another’s behavior. Not only is it patronizing, at best, but it can only lead to -- well, disappointment. Better to set standards for one’s self, and recognizing that, just like everyone else, we all have flaws.

I’m getting a bit side-tracked, a not uncommon feature of old age.

I’m glad -- though not surprised -- that you take a different approach to discussing Clinton et al with your friends in real life. I suspect that this is rather common among those who post on the internet, including DU. Speaking only for myself -- an example, I suppose, of one of the standards that I set for myself -- I try to be as respectful of people here, as I would were they sitting in my living room. That doesn’t absolutely exclude ever making a snaky reply to an individual who I recognize as a troll, or responding with an attempt at humor when someone says something foolish. But is does mean that I do not assume that the majority of people who disagree with me on an issue such as Ms. Clinton, are not trolls or fools.

I think that the tone being set on DU:GD is becoming too harsh and toxic to allow for meaningful discussions to compete with the nonsense. In my opinion, some of your recent comments have added to that ugly tone. I also recognize that you have the right to post whatever you want to. Yet, not withstanding the temporary pleasure that snark may bring, I wonder if, deep down, you really think that those posts serve any positive role in a discussion about Ms. Clinton’s qualifications to be President?

I read your comment on the "NG Fan" thread, and thank you very much. I, myself, am not a "fan" fan either, so I take your point.

It still remains, however, that you took one comment I made on one thread about "some anti-Hill posters" being trolls - and then extrapolated that into being a "pattern" of behaviour on my part, which is clearly not true. Nor have I ever insinuated that ALL anti-Hill posters are trolls.

This has become part of the toxicity that now permeates this site - posters having their comments twisted into what you're saying then is ...", or, "what you REALLY mean is ...", or having a single comment on a single issue being noted as "a pattern".

I have not advocated for Hillary at all. But I have defended her when I see bullshit being tossed around as though it were fact.

My only "advocacy", if you can call it that, for her candidacy is that she polls incredibly well against all probable GOP contenders. I am in it to win it, and my support goes to whichever Democrat is most likely to be elected. Right now, that is HRC. Should someone come along tomorrow who looks to be a more likely winner, my support will go to them.

Am I snarky and uncivil in my replies to some people here? You're damned real I am. I am not about to be respectful to anyone who has demonstrated their own incapacity to be respectful to me, or others on this board. Given the "ugly tone" that has become the norm here, altering my own tone will not change things, nor serve any purpose.

The DU rule changes of a few years ago, along with a "jury system" that is a sad joke, have turned this board into a boxing match - and I am not about to play by the rules when everyone else in the ring is armed with sledgehammers and machetes. It's that simple.

I miss the days when there actually WERE rules of engagement here, and they were strictly enforced. But those days are gone and, as I've said, this is no longer a Democratic site. It's just another free-for-all message board where obvious trolls are allowed to post without any fear of consequences.

that brought me to this board, too. Although I spent the Bush years just reading. I didn't bother to register and comment until much later.

That is a fact.

How does it feel inside to support someone who voted to authorize a war that resulted in a million civilian deaths?

Joe Biden voted for the IWR so yah... If you voted for Obama how does it feel?

Barack Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time. Thus he did not vote on the invasion. But as a member of the state senate in Illinois, he expressed his vocal opposition, calling it a foolish decision by President Bush; and when he joined the U.S. senate in 2004, he voted against the surge and against additional funding for expanding the war. In 2008, as a candidate, he promised he would end our involvement in Iraq if he were elected, and that is what he did

My conscience is clear. How about yours?

Better now even.

Seems many don't have one, unfortunately. Interesting to know you feel fine.

But you continue not to answer a very simple question about how you feel supporting a candidate that voted to authorize a war that resulted in a million civilian deaths. Millions of thinking Americans won't ignore it, however. Myself included

That's the answer your looking for right?

And now you can link to this post in your next big OP. And next time you want to call me an idiot or "unthinking American" just do it.

The bush you beat around is quite large.

I would like to think you care about it. I wont link to your post. If that is how you really feel, we have nothing further to talk about unfortunately. I dont have big OP's. Im new here, despite what has been falsely insinuated here on other threads which Im not going to mention. I guess its because I lean to the left here like hundreds of others, the new person makes an easy target. I dont let it bother me.

I really was hoping for a little humanity in your response to be honest. Im sad if that is really how you feel.

I would not call you names or say your unthinking or an idiot. I apologize if I came accross that way. I can be snarky many times too. Im not against you Agschmid. Or anybody else here. I think I will read your post and try and be more kind here, and not so sarcastic. Words can hurt, but I feel it necessary to still stand up for what I believe in.

Same on my end, but know that I don't give up that easy... and we do seem to be on quite opposite ends of the spectrum here.

I do think it's important to have other people run, and again I'm not solidly in anyone's camp but the clock is certainly ticking. And for me a president from the republican side who is against my very right to choose who I marry is a big deal (though less of one lately).

I feel and have always been supportive of marriage equality, LGBTQ rights, and minority rights. I find it sickening the daily stories, for example, of black men shot to death by cops who get away with it. Its awful stuff like that that really makes me have my beliefs about what this country really stands for. And its not marriage Equality. Or minority rights. Or labor rights. Or many rights I really care about. Maybe we are not on opposite ends as much as you think, but differ on the best direction to achieve similar goals

thing HRC supporters have. Like this OP. No one provides any argument with substance for why we should vote for someone that betrayed our Party and helped the Republicons with the biggest disaster in modern history.

Remember 2000 when the Conservative Democrats tried to coerce the Left into supporting the DLC candidate? It didn't work then, but at least then the Conservative Dems had Nader to blame.